This is a joke, right?
Schools will not move to stop using words like mum and dad, or girlfriend and boyfriend, the NSW Education Department says, despite reports that public schools are under pressure to provide gay-friendly environments.
Read: Mum's the word as gay lobbyists denied
This is a joke, right? This can't be serious?
Because someone makes a lifestyle choice and then chooses to un-naturally bring children into it, they want to stop calling me Dad? Are they out of their minds.
I don't mind equal rights for gays & lesbians but when you expect to drag my natural name of Dad down to that of Partner, you go too far friend. Don't expect to be treated the same when you are not.
The natural way to be a parent is two people who love each other, are married and financially stable decide to bring a child into the world that they know they can love, care for and support.
Not those who leave it too late and have to resort to IVF, there's a lime limit on fertility for a reason.
Not those who decide to put the connector in the wrong hole, that's biologically impossible.
Not those who cannot support the child properly, if you can't look after it properly, don't have one.
For the record, I'm an Atheist. I firmly accept evolution as proven scientific fact. I also accept that homosexuality has a proven place in evolution too. But not for the purposes of producing children but supporting others who choose to do so.
So don't you dare challenge what my children can and can't call me, don't you dare bring me to your level. I'm not a cowboy, so don't call me partner.
15 comments:
I agree with how ridiculous it is to expect to change the English language. I want my kids to call me mum!
What I don't get is how can you replace "mum/dad" with "partner". Ummm... conrrect me if I'm wrong, but that has a completely different meaning! Wouldn't "partner" infer something incestuous (sp?)? Shouldn't it be "parent"???
It's a reference to the idea of Mummy and her Partner instead of Mum & Dad (as it should be).
Well, one of the two could never be a parent in the correct sense of the word. So that word must be excluded.
Personally I am sick of this kind of political correctness and am glad to see it was rejected.
the worldwide attach by gays continues. I just can't understand why people who choose a certain lifestyle want to force their lifestyle unto everybody else and yet they complain and keep lobbying for rights and freedoms...see the contradiction?
Our views on God and evolution differ but we are facing the same homosexual "attack" here in Jamaica.
i worry about my unborn children everyday.
Exactly!
While I will never offer anything than logical, constructive discussion about issues of faith, I object to people with agendas trying to put words into the mouths of children for the sake of Political Correctness.
It just makes me wonder what the heck these people are thinking about....
What do you mean by "not those who leave it too late and have to resort to IVF, there's a lime limit on fertility for a reason."
ARe you referring to females too? Coz some people have been trying but for some reason or other have problems, they shouldn't be penalised for using ivf in that case.
There has been a proven correlation between age and fertility. For the greatest success of having healthy children, they should be born before the age of 35 (for the woman).
After the age of 35 the chances of conceiving drop considerably along with a corresponding increase in birth defects. Human eggs don't last that long.
When I read about these women who are 40-60+ using IVF to have children I can only think "too late".
My mum was 37 when she gave birth to me, and i turned out fine. I know of other women who keep falling pregnant well into their 40's. I think if women feel they want to have babies at that age and feel well enough to look after them then good on them. I certainly would not look down on a woman because of her bodily faults. You can't choose if your ovaries are going to work well or not!
Then that's cool. If people can get pregnant naturally at an older age, go for it. But they have to expect reduced chances and increased chances of defects like Down Syndrome.
I would rather see people try to have children when they are younger and thus can give more energy to the child as they grow instead of leaving it too late and relying on technology to help them do something they should have done earlier in life.
There's such a thing as missing the boat...
If you are 25 and can't get pregnant, then help should be available. If you are 45 and can't get pregnant, try adoption.
this is veering off topic, but I feel compelled to chip in. I know people harp on an on about their or one of their family ability to conceive at a late age, but is is something to be proud of?
I mean, it's well and good for older parent to opt for a child if they got the support around them, but how about those who doesn't? what happens when you are no longer able to care for the child & yourself? 37 for a 4th child is normal in my country, but for a first child?
Mmm.. just have to put in my 2 cents worth...
As a 35 year old woman about to try to start a family, my fertility and other possible negative consequences of my age are of a great concern. Sadly I didn't find my partner until later in life and we wanted to make sure we had a stable enviroment to bring our children into. I haven't felt that it was responsible for us to bring a child into the world until now.
Because of my age, I'm now doing everything I can to try to make up for it. I'm giving up caffeine, chocolate, sugary products, fatty and salty foods. I'm making as sure as I can that I have the right nutrients for both myself and for the optimal development of a baby. I'm at the gym trying to get to the optimal body fat for fertility and to be as strong as possible for the safest and healthiest pregnancy. And it's quite funny what flack I get for being such a fanatic.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that age is definately a factor that needs to be considered, and up to a certain point you can try to do what you can to make up for older eggs. I don't think however that someone should rush into having a child at a younger age, purely because of age, if the right environment isn't going to be there for the child.
Interestingly, I read somewhere, (and I've just been trying to find that study) that children who are born to mothers who are older than 30 when they've had their first child, are actually smarter. Women of that age generally take better care of themselves was one of the reasons given.
Personally, hubby and I have discussed at great length what we'll do if we can't concieve naturally. We've decided that it will be nature's way of telling us that we aren't meant to be biological parents. We won't go down the IVF route. We haven't ruled out adoption though....
Wow, sorry, that was a very long comment!
Wow! What a post, OK here I go to reply....
I completely agree that it's always best to wait until you feel emotionally and financially ready to support a child before you start a family.
Also I don't doubt that an older mother would be in a position to take better care of the child.
But it comes down to finding the sweetspot. At what point does being older become a drawback instead of an advantage? 29? 32? 37?
Also the same goes for being a younger mother?
I would hazard a guess that nutrition and household stability are influential factors. And an older mother would be better able to give this.
But also think about the difference of a 55 year old mother with 15 year old child versus 40 year old mother with 15 year old child. How much energy can you devote to them? Will you live long enough to really know your grandchildren?
My mother-in-law is 56 this year and she has plenty of energy to help with our son. But I couldn't imagine her being able to keep up with a teenager.
I guess the discussion has turned from my anger at the gay agenda to worries about age and motherhood.
But Mel as you say your age is of great concern to you. I had considered such things at an early age (I first started thinking about when I would have a family when I was about 17 or so) and would rather not have to consider if we will live long enough to see our grandchildren but to make sure we are young enough to have energy for them.
The disadvantages of having children later in life (for me) are far too many.
Might i just add that my mum had me when she was 37, but she had my sister when she was 19, and my brother when she was 20 and because she was so young she did not have time to take care of them well or spend time with them. Her then husband ran off with another woman and left her with 2 small kids to raise. However, when my mum had me she had all the time in the world for me, and she was financially stable and even though my father died when i was 2 i wasn't lonely because my mum played with me all the time and we grew up so close, we talk to each other on the phone every day and see each other every week even though we live an hour away from each other. I think it's quality, not quantity of time. My mum is mid 60's and i'm about to have kids, i think she's pretty fine with being a grandparent.
My in-laws are in their 50's, and they live in Japan, they are probably not alright with it because their mentality is that they're "old", and too old to travel to australia to see grandkids.
I don't know why you have a bee in your bonnet about this, but it seems you have some kind of issue with it that you use to judge other people. If women have ovaries and want to have kids later in life, who are you to judge?
"For the greatest success of having healthy children", so you have had yours, and they are healthy right? Great! That's excellent. But i believe Melanie and all other women who chose later life babies will have healthier babies, because they will be mentally healthier having parents around to love them and not leave them at child care centres, and let them walk 5 km to school by themselves like young working parents do. They won't grow up as latch-key kids.
I agree that having children when I was younger would have been great so that I could have more energy to play with them when they are older. I would have loved to have children when I was younger, but sadly it wasn't an option for me.
I don't think that energy is the be-all and end-all of parenting however. There are plenty of parents out there with lots of energy to give their kids but not the emotional support. My parents had us when we were young, and quite frankly, my mother sucked as a mum as she wasn't in an emotional position to give us what we needed. There are so many factors and each family is different.
If we are blessed with a child, we will everything we can to make sure that he/she is a happy, healthy child.
It's funny how this discussion has really gone off on a tangent isn't it.
Wow, this has really gone off topic. I will close comments after this.
I can't tell anyone what they can and can't do with their bodies. The same way that I can't tell anyone what they can't do in the bedroom. The same as they can't tell me what my child is allowed to call me.
Remember what the original post was about, right?
It has been proven that there are health risks to children for mothers over 35. Being a child to an older mother & father I can tell you that it seriously sucked. My friends at school went surfing, camping or beach football with their parents. I got taken to restaurants and the opera while my two much older brothers had all the things I missed out on.
Because my parents were too old to take care of an energetic child.
So from my own childhood experiences and the few other children to older parents, I could compare to those who had younger parents and see how we missed out.
As for latch key Children, one of the reasons I moved to Japan was to be able to afford a home on a single income. Thus freeing my wife to be able to choose to work or not. But she views things the same as I do, have children young, live on a single income, raise them with their grandparents in their lives (and I mean into their 30's, not teens) and have the energy to help them when they have children of their own.
My father is too old to be able to give us any significant assistance in raising my son but his maternal grandparents complain that we don't leave him there over night and we go and do something ourselves. That's the difference between 56 and 71.
If we had left it until my wife was 35 to have our first child, we could never experience any of this.
So having been born to a mother of 36 and my wife being 26 when my son was born I have been able to experience the difference first hand. Health issues aside, I can only say that younger is better.
But one little jab before I close comments.
Our lives are limited. Say you expect to live until you are 80.
Would you rather know your child until they are 65 or 55?
I want to do my best to be a part of my children's lives for as long as possible. Having my children while I am young-ish (I'm 31, I'm no spring chicken myself) enables me to be a part of their lives for longer.
I thank both Mel and Azumarisan for your contributions to this discussion. This post is now closed.
Post a Comment